The Entire Russian Fleet

The Russian/Soviet Navy has never been more than a coastal defence force, with very limited naval power projection. Their subs were probably their biggest asset, when they were at their peak about 15 years ago. Surface ship wise, with the way the Russian Navy was treated for decades, they aren't very impressive. Their Navy and armed forces in general need to retool and overhaul. Not to say they aren't a force to be reckoned with, just that they have been more powerful in the past.

The top two Fleets in the world are the USN and RN in that order. Both are fine, well trained, with very modern equipment, tactics and training. Everybody else is a quite distant third from those two. They are the only two full blown, go anywhere, Navies in the world. I would not want to tangle with either of them if given the choice.

These discussions are increasingly worthless, because rarely do I see more than a bunch of nationalist BS and "my dad can beat up your dad" crap that would embarrass any sensible 12 year old.

Give me hard data on the Russian Navy - not some useless drivel about "well the British are genetically superior sailors" or similar ignorant nonsense.

Originally posted by 3vilscript
As for them being garbage, well there is an unfortunate deathcount of American Soldiers that would challenge that argument. Last time I checked, and it was this morning, Iraq is anything but safe to visit. Also I believe that Hugo Chavez is buying AK-47s and Sukhois aswell.

Most American deaths in Iraq - I believe, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong - are due to road side bombs and other explosives and weapons. The AK-47 is extremely ineffective, still that doesn't mean I wouldn't fear being in front of one...

If Chavez is buying Sukhois and AK-47s it's because for obvious reasons he can't buy M-16s or even spare parts for his F-16s.

Anyways, I personally think that a ship vs ship situation would be very rare in modern warfare. As long as the Russian navy ships can be located, they can be destroyed really easily by the air force and long range missiles, and just like pavil said, the Russian Navy biggest asset is the subs.



[edit on 23-3-2008 by daniel_g]

Originally posted by pavil
The top two Fleets in the world are the USN and RN in that order. Both are fine, well trained, with very modern equipment, tactics and training. Everybody else is a quite distant third from those two. They are the only two full blown, go anywhere.

Shows how little you know. The French operate the only supercarrier in the world outside the United States. How's that for "full blown, go anywhere".

reply to post by SteveR


France does not have the naval base arrangements of either Britain or the US. They cannot project power in a naval sense better than the either of those powers. The Charles de Gaulle is an impressive carrier I wouldn't sneeze at it and France can project power regionally in areas of the globe as evidenced in the Middle East and West Africa. It's not a bad navy, just a step below the RN and USN overall. You may disagree, but I don't intend to get in a "my navy is better than your navy" argument.




[edit on 23-3-2008 by pavil]

Originally posted by daniel_g

Originally posted by 3vilscript
As for them being garbage, well there is an unfortunate deathcount of American Soldiers that would challenge that argument. Last time I checked, and it was this morning, Iraq is anything but safe to visit. Also I believe that Hugo Chavez is buying AK-47s and Sukhois aswell.

Most American deaths in Iraq - I believe, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong - are due to road side bombs and other explosives and weapons. The AK-47 is extremely ineffective, still that doesn't mean I wouldn't fear being in front of one...

If Chavez is buying Sukhois and AK-47s it's because for obvious reasons he can't buy M-16s or even spare parts for his F-16s.

Anyways, I personally think that a ship vs ship situation would be very rare in modern warfare. As long as the Russian navy ships can be located, they can be destroyed really easily by the air force and long range missiles, and just like pavil said, the Russian Navy biggest asset is the subs.



[edit on 23-3-2008 by daniel_g]

You should do more research before posting, the AK-47 is to be compaired against the M-14, in which the 47 is WAY better, (better read before responding to that) Chavez is buying the Su's because they ARE better than the 16, and they are cheaper, (I'd read GlobalSecurity/FAS.org and others before you respond)
The Russian Army hasn't used the AK-47 for 34 year, they've been using the AK-74 scince 1974, and they've been replacing that (AK-74) with the AK-100's scince the 90's, your like 30+ years late MAN!!

[edit on 24-3-2008 by Lambo Rider]

American Military Forces have utterly destroyed the Russian weapons that they sold to the Iraqis. That crap was practically garbage, and now that we have taken out Iraq, not once, but twice, the world doesn’t buy Russian crap anymore.

Oh, hoh... What B/S. Iraq fights with over 15 yrs old armament, because of war in Kuwait, and after that more than 10 yrs they didnt rearm them self because the US Siege. We cant say nothing, It wasnt head to head fighting.

Using AK 47 depends from training in sharp shooting. Where you train your self in Iraq now days, except in Live fire situations?

If US challenge Iran, like supposed, we see first war like head to head... Then we can talk what was crap, and what wasnt.

reply to post by SteveR


That's all well and good, but having only one aircraft carrier subjects you to the whim of maintenance and availability. That's why the need this CVF class to come along quickly.

Also, the CDG is less than half the Nimitz by weight and air complement and utilizes two submarine-sized reactors.


[edit on 24-3-2008 by oxillini]

Originally posted by SteveR

The French operate the only supercarrier in the world outside the United States. How's that for "full blown, go anywhere".

My only question about "French" anything is how fast can it go in reverse.

This thread is about the dilapidated Russian fleet rusting in their cold weather harbors being amongst the best in the world.

reply to post by hinky


This thread is about various nationalist stereotypes & outright pig ignorance being thrown around freely as if they were fact, with a near-total lack of actual useful data about the Russian Navy, it's composition, fleet status, etc...

The bulk of the Russian Navy was rusting in port - in 1995.
Not true anymore, as major combat vessels have seen increasing refurbishment and a huge increase in the pace of fleet operations, now that Russia has a 7% economic growth rate and is flush with oil money.

As far as the French Navy goes, for instance, despite the "surrender monkey" meme (I guess nobody has ever heard of the Napoleonic Wars ), they are the only country outside the US and Russia operating a modern full-size carrier - until the CVF's come online at least. Or until the Indians get Kitty Hawk as a bonus prize for ordering 65 Super Bugs.

[edit on 3/24/08 by xmotex]

Double post!
See below

[edit on 24-3-2008 by Daedalus3]

Hokaay!

Seems this one's going to turn sour real soon so reality check:

Originally posted by Hot_Wings
Russia knows that China and the U.S. rule the world and so Putin has been trying to flex his military muscles like a child whining at his bigger brothers saying, “Give Me More Respect Dangit!”

Russian technology is completely outdated; and now that the iron “lie” curtain has fallen, everyone who matters fully knows how weak and sad Russia has become. It’s pathetic really, how hard Putin is trying to remain a “Big Boy” at the international table.

You are in the Weaponry Forum sir. And although it pains me to say that the standard of posting has not been as great as that of the Aircraft Forum, these
two fora SURVIVE on pure objective, source-based threads.
The above quoted text is completely non-compliant to that effect and so please back up statements like:
Russian technology is completely outdated; and now that the iron “lie” curtain has fallen, everyone who matters fully knows how weak and sad Russia has become.
with numbers, figures, sources etc etc.. hec everything doesn't need to be online. You can scan pics and photos or quote hearsay that you may have picked up. Whatever, it HAS to be substantiated.

Me and other ATS patriots have spent too many years trying to rid it of such unsupported subjectivity.
I'm sorry to be so brash but its just the way things are here. We have all learnt form our mistakes here, and we don't want other to follow the same learning curve.

Another heads up: Statements like the above quoted, will bring a bunch of 'crazy' ATS analysts hosing you with info that is completely in opposition to what you say. You don't want to get into one of those multi page thread-a-thons with these guys!

Originally posted by Hot_Wings
American Military Forces have utterly destroyed the Russian weapons that they sold to the Iraqis. That crap was practically garbage, and now that we have taken out Iraq, not once, but twice, the world doesn’t buy Russian crap anymore.

Well, that is unless its more of that old crap and it’s practically given away.

Same here.
Please please be objective in what you post.

Thank you.

DD3

Skywatcher,

I'm glad you have been posting facts and looking towards constructive debate. I trust your time here on the ATS weaps and a/c fora have given you a lot.

Now to your fact sheet:
You posted the specs on a carrier class and Type 42 Destroyers.
How would these fare against the Akula class subs or SSGNs or Missile-heavy variety Russian destroyers and frigates?

The Harriers IMHO are not a match for any decent Russian air defence surface vessel. The naval equivalent of the S-300 ensures that.

Now I am unaware of the real time operational capability of the Su-33Ks onboard the Kuznetsov, but unless they're in a really crappy state of affairs, those Su a/c out do the Harrier in all areas except maybe visual cross section.

In the domain of CIWS, sure the British pieces take a lead, but then again, are the Russian CIWS ever going to be seriously engaged?

Now this statement:

Originally posted by Sky watcher
With the Royal Navy you have men and systems that can be trusted, You can not say that with a navy that is in taters and has no combat experience at all. When it all comes down to it British subs will sink every Russian surface ship in one day if the whole Russian fleet is in range of the British sub fleet. Then the same may happen to the Brits surface ships because the subs are going to be the last ones to survive. Then again you would never just have the Brits taking on the Russians by themselves, That would result in the U.S. Navy making sure every Russian ship and sub meets the bottom.

Not an unreasonable scenario; depends on if the Russians become all scared n' sissy (and tactically smart at same time) by hiding all their high value surface vessels in docks while sending out their SSNs and SSGNs to pick off British surface vessels.
I doubt if the British will do that. The Russian Navy is known to 'camp'; that has been unheard of in the Royal Navy?

Originally posted by Sky watcher
During the cold war in the late 80s or early 90s the U.S. president decided to send Russia a message to back off on a certain issue and the message was a ping in the rear to every Russian sub around the world at the same time to let them know that our U.S. subs were right behind them and we could sink them at any time any place of our choosing.

Do you know that there have been instances of USN SSBNs being made aware of soviet SSNs in the same humiliating manner?
I've heard it on this ATS board, and in fact IIRC it was Zaphod who shared that USN hearsay with us.
We're talking about the RN though so lets keep the USN out for now

Originally posted by xmotex
Give me hard data on the Russian Navy - not some useless drivel about "well the British are genetically superior sailors" or similar ignorant nonsense.

Bravo! Let me buy you a beer sir! And mind you the above holds true for the converse as well:
No soviet propaganda bull, where 'the Russians are better prepared armed to the teeth and no one can do jack about it.'
Lets be realistic! The RN is no pushover either.

Originally posted by SteveR
Shows how little you know. The French operate the only supercarrier in the world outside the United States. How's that for "full blown, go anywhere".

And I owe you a beer too! The French naval air arm currently outperforms the British naval air arm purely because of the fighters each navy operates.

Now lets move toward a more civilized discussion shall we?
Lot of interesting things to discuss here.

Originally posted by pavil
It's not a bad navy, just a step below the RN and USN overall. You may disagree, but I don't intend to get in a "my navy is better than your navy" argument.

No worries. I'm British.

reply to post by Hot_Wings


Is that what you really think?

reply to post by Daedalus3


Last night they had a really good two hour program on the history of the Russian Navy and they have a very bad record so far. They had an amazing fleet during the late part of the cold war but now I will show you their combat doctrine and how we have countered it. When I say we I'm mean NATO and the U.S. as most of our navy systems have been adopted.

First you can look at their surface fleet. Every ship and sub is almost solely for a massive cruise missile attack. That is their doctrine, They plan on trying to sink every ship mainly with cruise missiles. Large destroyers will send twenty of them to try and sink one ship. I'm talking big Russian Shipwreck missiles. While that may be all fine the U.S. and NATO countered that threat along time ago by developing the AEGIS destroyers and cruisers that protect every ship in the respective battle groups. Lets look at AEGIS. It during an attack will track all targets and use what weapons it feels that is best for the job from any ship in the group it sees fit. We are looking at one system controlling all of the hundreds of missiles and guns at once. They have three layers of defence from cruise missiles or any type of missile or aircraft. You have the Standard type long and medium range missile, www.fas.org... Sea Sparrow for medium range, www.fas.org... And you have the Phalanx Gun. www.fas.org... This system was designed and tested to protect every ship from the Russian cruise missiles period. So unless AEGIS fails completely and all the weapons systems on each ship all fail at the same time no missile should get through that many layers of defence.

Now lets look at the subs. Same as above. Most of their subs are cruise missile attack platforms with the same Ship Wreck missiles. One problem, Every Russian sub is loud and the Akula can be heard over a thousand miles away. The new Oscar II is the first quiet Russian sub and it has already been tracked by U.S. subs. How do we know? The Kursk was an Oscar II. Our subs are right behind them every time they move so they will all be sunk, Thats just a fact. Our subs are extremely quiet and our new line of subs the Sea Wolf and Virgina class has put the Russian sub fleet basically out of the game. The new Ohio class based cruise missile platform could also send a barrage of 154 Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM) at a Russian battle group and they would never stand a chance if the navy thought that they needed some loaded full with the anti-ship version all though they do not. www.globalsecurity.org...

Now lets look at the Russian air craft carrier. They have one and well thats not enough to counter the Brits at all.

OK I'm sick of typing so I will get to the point. Russia has three good surface ships and one of them is their Carrier. They still have many subs but how many of the loud targets do they still have swimming the sea is almost anyones guess.

Bellow, Courtesy of World navies today.

State of the Russian Fleet: Due to continued political, economic and societal chaos in Russia, the Fleet is in a badly deteriorated state. Even those ships that remain in commission and theoretically operational are generally unable to deploy, due to lack of trained crews and lack of funds to buy fuel and stores. In general maintenance is minimal or nonexistent, and there are no funds to conduct much-needed overhauls, even for major fleet units. Many ships have been abandoned when repairs or refits came due.

This list identifies those units believed to remain operational, but most of these units are unable to deploy for the reasons cited above. Ships in refit are listed only when there is a reasonable chance of them returning to service. Ships laid up pending refit generally are listed, as they could return to service if funding became available.

www.hazegray.org...

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Do you know that there have been instances of USN SSBNs being made aware of soviet SSNs in the same humiliating manner?
I've heard it on this ATS board, and in fact IIRC it was Zaphod who shared that USN hearsay with us.
We're talking about the RN though so lets keep the USN out for now

Actually, just to correct the record it was US SSNs that became aware of Russian/Soviet SSNs that way. The only SSBN (Ohio) that I'm aware of that was ever even close to tracked had a pump/mechanical issue that made it slightly noisier than background, and even then it was a bear to detect.

Wait so some of you are saying that the Iraquis are fighting us with nothing more than balls of crap and we have been over there for what, 7, years already? Maybe be we should light bags of shi* aswell and throw them at them.

In my opinion, there are only a couple of things that could win a war in this day and age... WMD's(maybe), enormous numbers of resiliant soldiers, and Godzila... and I dont know about the last one, the Chinese kill it in their movies I think.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by 3vilscript]

My friends, I will gladly add the documentation necessary to support my previous blasting of Putin and the state of the Russian military. Yet, while I know that what I have said was true, others need to be convinced adequately. As well, my reputation as a poster must be defended in this regard. I do not post such comments as, “Russia needs a booster seat to be able to sit at the Security Counsel” lightly and without due consideration.

However, while I have gathered evidence sufficient in my mind to convince me that Russia has a long, long way to go before they are a major military force to be reckoned with once again, it will take me some time to properly gather the evidence, review it, and consolidate for posting with references.

But before I begin, lets take a moment to recap Russia economic history over the last ten years with the following articles and facts. For the last ten years Russia’s economy has been grossly inefficient and lacking in all manner of liquidity and finance along with Russia unwillingness to repay foreign investors in recent years. This unbearable financial system greatly limits their capability for innovation and sustained warfare.

The first fact is that for the last ten years, Russian companies have been using the barter system as a means of exchanging their good to their customers. This drastically reduces their economic efficiency .

All of my discussions about Russia’s current military strength will stem from their current inefficient and delapidate economic situation. Despite their military numbers or technological advancement, no military can sustain the capability for warfare without an efficient economic underpinning. If we cannot agree on this simple truth, then our discussions about Russia’s “true” military capacity as a threat to its neighbors will be flawed.

As has been stated previously by others, “Submarine counts on the books does not relate to military superiority or capability”. There are other more important factors that actually constrain and limit a militaries capabilities. It is these factors that I will address first. Later, I will examine the size and technological weakness of Russia’s rusting away fleets.

Here are just a few magazine articles to chew on first. I am still reviewing the more authoritative analyst reports and government releases.

www.businessweek.com...

MAKESHIFT ECONOMY. It's a bizarre and oddly flexible economic model. Some economists call it the ''virtual economy,'' because real money, real goods, and real output play such a small role. It is, in fact, a three-tier economy. The Russian currency, the ruble, is used mainly to buy necessities such as food. IOUs, barter, and ''surrogate currencies'' are used in most dealings involving companies.

www.heritage.org...

The result is a situation that undermines the faith of ordinary Russians in free market systems and participatory government and discourages foreign investment.

Russia's economy is in an unprecedented ten-year slump. Foreign debt stands at about $150 billion, and Russia has little chance of meeting its repayment schedules. Moscow has defaulted on much of its foreign obligations. Domestic and foreign investments stand at 20 percent of their 1990 rates. Estimates of capital flight since 1987 run between $150 billion and $300 billion.

To reverse this decline, Russia's new government must implement a comprehensive program of reforms as quickly as possible. Such a program should include:

1. Reducing crime and corruption
   
2. Reforming the judicial system to strengthen the rule of law
   
3. Securing foreign loans with natural resources as collateral
   
4. Concentrating debt management in a high-level government agency
   
5. Reforming the tax system
   
6. Eliminating the use of the barter system rather than cash in non-competitive goods and services and payment of tax arrears
   
7. Stopping the disruption of interstate commerce by regional governors
   
8. Passing a land code to encourage the development of construction, private farming, and agribusiness
   
9. Considering the possible benefits of a currency board
   

These steps would help the new government to jump-start the economy, facilitate entrepreneurship, and attract domestic and foreign investment.

www.iht.com...

Despite the higher costs, Poltavets said that if corruption in the energy sector were stamped out, it could make up for the extra amounts of gas Ukraine had to import in the past because of theft. It would also put pressure on enterprises to become more efficient in their use of energy.

My friends, These are just some of the problems that Russia has been dealing with over the last ten years. I am currently reading a report about Russia’s current economic situation. However, someone has all ready posted good links to to the truth about Russia’s rusting fleet, so I will not repost that information unless somone still requiers me to defend my statements further by continuing my analysis to the military conclusion.

Thank you, to the others who also have posted the truth about Russia’s rusting fleet and severely compromised military capabilities.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by Hot_Wings]

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Last night they had a really good two hour program on the history of the Russian Navy and they have a very bad record so far. They had an amazing fleet during the late part of the cold war but now I will show you their combat doctrine and how we have countered it. When I say we I'm mean NATO and the U.S. as most of our navy systems have been adopted.

Oh good. Can you share the name of the program and the channel it was shown on?

This system was designed and tested to protect every ship from the Russian cruise missiles period. So unless AEGIS fails completely and all the weapons systems on each ship all fail at the same time no missile should get through that many layers of defense.

Irrespective of the level of saturation? Irrespective of whether its a Onix or a
Brahmos or a Sunburn? Frankly IMHO these are superior to the TASM or Harpoon.

I am to understand that you are refuting the numerous discussions ATS has had about operational supersonic AShCMs and the chance of them breaking through layered defenses? Saturation attacks, sea skimming missiles etc etc? No point going over all that if you believe AEGIS to be infallible to any realistic Russian saturation CM missile attack.
I for do not believe either way; I feel there is no substantial battle proof either ways. AEGIS isn't useless and neither is magically infallible irrespective of the level of saturation.

One problem, Every Russian sub is loud and the Akula can be heard over a thousand miles away.

I'm sure you understand that you need much more than that to make heads turn here.

What if I let you in on a little secret; two Akula II SSNs in transition to a 10 year for the IN, trail USN battle groups in the Arabian Sea from time to time, just for the hec of it.
I believe that even if this were true it would a preposterous since I cannot prove it.

The new Oscar II is the first quiet Russian sub and it has already been tracked by U.S. subs. How do we know? The Kursk was an Oscar II. Our subs are right behind them every time they move so they will all be sunk.Thats just a fact.

I thought the Servodvinsk Class were the quietest? Which US sub tracked the Kursk? Which class?

Our subs are extremely quiet and our new line of subs the Sea Wolf and Virgina class has put the Russian sub fleet basically out of the game. The new Ohio class based cruise missile platform could also send a barrage of 154 Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM) at a Russian battle group and they would never stand a chance if the navy thought that they needed some loaded full with the anti-ship version all though they do not. www.globalsecurity.org...

I would not deny that the sea wolf and Virginia class subs are equivalent to the best the Russians have or maybe even better. I give you the benefit of doubt. Remember that we are talking about the RN here eh?
But are you sure that the TASM is capable of overpowering Russian layered defences? Particularly after the T-LACMs were stopped(231 claimed?) in their tracks by legacy SAM defences in Yugoslavia?

Now lets look at the Russian air craft carrier. They have one and well thats not enough to counter the Brits at all.

huh?

OK I'm sick of typing so I will get to the point. Russia has three good surface ships and one of them is their Carrier. They still have many subs but how many of the loud targets do they still have swimming the sea is almost anyones guess.

Which are those 3?
Your mind's already made up huh?
My bad, I thought you'd gained some ground on the bigger picture.

Bellow, Courtesy of World navies today.
......
www.hazegray.org...

"Revised 25 March 2002
Version 1.11"

The Russians currently have 9 Akula class subs (3 Akula II) ,
16 Kilo class SSKs (877EKM and 636M at a 1:4 ratio) ,and 5 Oscar II SSGNs operational as of today.

They have 1 Cruiser(BCGN Kirov), and 3 destroyers (DDG Sovremenny), capable of holding their own against western counterparts.

One Carrier with a Su-33K air wing supposedly sufficient of being more capable than any RN Harrier air wing.

Its quite open ended if you ask me.
There is no way that the Russian Navy is a pushover. Not with BrahMos, Sunburns, Klub, S-300s, Su-33Ks etc etc.

Ok I'm bailing from this one.

Enough said.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by Daedalus3]

Maybe not now but, in 10 to 15 years from now I can see Russia and China posing a major threat. I would like to think the U.S would join in with the U.K. If push comes to shove. It would be a very sad day for myself if that was not the case.